D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Maxperson]

The rules allow PvP, but that doesn’t make I any less a table issue if someone engages in PvP when the rest of the table isn’t into that.

It doesn't make it any less a rules issue, either. Why are you guys trying to isolate the issue into one camp or the other? No rule, no issue. No asshat, no issue. It takes two to tango.

 

[Maxperson]

I would honestly like to hear an answer to that too. I've played quite a bit of the Realms and find it a pretty good setting. I played some Greyhawk way back in the day, but I honestly couldn't tell you any major difference between them. So if anyone can explain why they prefer one to the other, I'd be happy to hear it.

The major difference, and why I prefer the Realms, is that the Realms has far greater depth of lore. There's just much, much more written about it. They also have different histories. Greyhawk doesn't try to give you various cultures with similarities to Earth. The Realms does. If you want to be able to go to something sorta like Egypt, the Realms is for you.

 

[Blue]

Id like to see the class system removed and give the players the option to select a set number of balanced character features per level.

There are a lot of systems out there, many of which exactly as you say. I love D&D, but I also love other systems. If this bothers you, try branching out to some new games to see if it scratches that itch.

(Not trying to say this isn't a perfectly valid wish for 6e for you, just that you can experience it now if you want.)

Id also like to see the challenges harder if not downright deadly at times, i.e. save vs..."X" or you die, turn to stone or are polymorphed etc. I dont like how these type of effects saves are tiered, for instance a gorgons breath weapon.

This would likely not be in 6e, since that's an intentional design point that D&D has moved away from save or die effects where a single bad roll can kill a character.

 

[R_J_K75]

There are a lot of systems out there, many of which exactly as you say. I love D&D, but I also love other systems. If this bothers you, try branching out to some new games to see if it scratches that itch.

(Not trying to say this isn't a perfectly valid wish for 6e for you, just that you can experience it now if you want.)



This would likely not be in 6e, since that's an intentional design point that D&D has moved away from save or die effects where a single bad roll can kill a character.

I know that there are other systems out there but Ive already invested alot of time and money into D&D and its what my players are most familiar with so I think switching at this point might not be worth it. Id imagine even if the class system changed somethings like races, spells, magical items and monsters would probably remain somewhat similar to as theyve been for many years. So thats how I justify staying with D&D. As far as the save vs. die request, I realize that it was a conscious decision on their part to remove from the game but sometimes it seems its gone a bit too far.

 

[S'mon]

I know that there are other systems out there but Ive already invested alot of time and money into D&D and its what my players are most familiar with so I think switching at this point might not be worth it. Id imagine even if the class system changed somethings like races, spells, magical items and monsters would probably remain somewhat similar to as theyve been for many years. So thats how I justify staying with D&D. As far as the save vs. die request, I realize that it was a conscious decision on their part to remove from the game but sometimes it seems its gone a bit too far.

I tend to bring back a bit of save or die. Ignoring Jeremy Crawford helps - IMC being reduced to 0 hp by disintegrate et al is always fatal. And homebrew monsters can have save or die effects. Heck, IMC being pushed off a boat while wearing heavy armour is die-die unless your druid kindly cast Water Breathing on you beforehand!

 

[R_J_K75]

I tend to bring back a bit of save or die. Ignoring Jeremy Crawford helps - IMC being reduced to 0 hp by disintegrate et al is always fatal. And homebrew monsters can have save or die effects. Heck, IMC being pushed off a boat while wearing heavy armour is die-die unless your druid kindly cast Water Breathing on you beforehand!

Yep, hard to come back from that one. Not everyone deserves a participation trophy.

 

[5ekyu]

"blah blah"?

Am I detecting snark?



I really have no idea what argument you are making here.

And I'm suspecting you misinterpreted my argument, as well.

Snark? If choosing to point out and disregard use of loaded terms and subjective judgements is snark, then I guess my dictionary is out if date.

But to clarify, what are the objective rationale for your use of punish, gaping, exploit etc?

what separates npcs taking effective tactics against PCs from agm punishing them ?
How big and by what measure is a rules issue gaping cs just a regular run of the mill rules issue?
Where is the line between exploit and tactic?

If the answer to each of them is "depends on yourbpreferences" then using those as derogatories doesnt help st all any sort if discussion about merit or not of rules- it's basically name calling. Might as well just say. "This rule smells bad and has BO."

Meh...

 

[Blue]

The major difference, and why I prefer the Realms, is that the Realms has far greater depth of lore. There's just much, much more written about it. They also have different histories. Greyhawk doesn't try to give you various cultures with similarities to Earth. The Realms does. If you want to be able to go to something sorta like Egypt, the Realms is for you.

Everyone is right for their own table. The amount of lore is actually why I don't run the Realms - for me picking an existing setting is shorthand for the players to bring in their own knowledge so we have a shared understanding of the place. I wouldn't pick Eberron and remove the dragonmarks, houses, warforged and the Last War - it would be unrecognizable as Eberron.

So with FR I know that I do not have "all the lore" in my head, and my players can know more than me about various subjects. I haven't read any of the FR novels, for instance.

"But Sammaster ..." this or "But the Red Wizards ..." that or "The Mythal ..." other thing. I don't want to say "my campaign, this is how it is here" and actively mislead players by things I didn't know enough to tell them are different from their assumptions. Rather play in a world where they don't have those assumptions.

On the other hand, that's lead by my own shortcomings with FR. If I was more fluent with it's lore I might love that depth and richness.

 

[5ekyu]

Feels rot me like the 'Heal from 0' rules work as the designer intended. They would have put penalty on that if they really wanted to make it less optimal, or make bonus action healing better so healing before the ally drops to 0 would be a better move.

But, if you think its too easy, you could always just deny the healed character an action on its first turn. They're not defenceless or anything (staying down would be just as dangerous at low HP than at 0 because of the advantage) and they could get up, but they would still be shaken enough not to be able to just smack a dude right away. I think adding more complications would lead to more bookkeeping than is necessary and just cause the Heal Bot play style to come back, with paranoid players spending their turns making sure no one drop instead of contributing to ending the fight faster.

Personally, in my next game, I am likely going something like this

0 hit points does not mean unconscious.
While at 0 hp you make death saves as normal per 5e rules. At three fails you die, at three success you stabilize.
You can act but are at risk. Any damage while st zero causes an extra death save fail and a con save or get knocked out.
Each fail gives you one level of exhaustion as well but that goes away when you stabilize.

Heal from zero is still fine. The drama of zero isxdyill there but less inaction.

 

[5ekyu]

I freaked my players out a couple of sessions ago when the wizard went down and the demon attacking him kept going causing him the auto fail his first two death saves. The wizards turn was next and he had to roll his final death save, whereupon the session ended. The post session debate among the PCs was quite entertaining as they tried to justify not healing him sooner.

So I think just ensuring that there’s enough variety in monster tactics that the players can’t predict what might happen if a PC goes down would be enough to curtail a blasé attitude?

Just the frequency of AoE damage is often enough. I mean being inside the spirit guardians radius of the enemy cleric and getting one magic missle out of the swarm ought to be of serious concern to many players who dont fear dropping to zero.

This of course depends on campaign but frankly, it's rare in my games for deadly situation like PCs at zero to be occurring in the "it's a dumb brute adverssry" encounters.

The cases where PCs tend to get to zero are when they are fighting adversaries eith magic snd resources at their hands as well, so, on going area effects and multi-target effects are not only present but also raise the stakes on going zero.

So, in my gsmes and in my ecperience the going to zero then heal up is a serious risk in most of the encounters where it is even an issue. It's a serious risk of going dead.

I imagine for games ehere somehow the party or characters is put en prise by non-magic brutes with regularity would feel differently.